OuterBanksVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
- Messages
- 3,064
- Likes
- 5,138
"This is a victory for the American people and the rule of law," San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement. "This executive order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry.
"We live in a democracy. No one is above the law, including the president."
Theres a reason we arent a democracy. Its to keep idiots from having majority rule.
So, you'd naturally advocate that the federal government should begin arresting pot smokers in states where it's legal. And I thought Republicans advocated less federal government? Ahhh the hypocracy.
Big difference between cutting off funding and arresting people.
Picking and choosing which laws to follow smh. The federal govt should have rolled in there and shut that down. I'm pro legalization, but letting the states flaunt federal law seems to me bad precedent.
Also, I skimmed the article and didn't see where it mentioned on what grounds it was unconstitutional. Seems to me to be the same concept that the fed govt used to unify the drinking age to 21 nationwide, is that unconstitutional as well?
So, you'd naturally advocate that the federal government should begin arresting pot smokers in states where it's legal. And I thought Republicans advocated less federal government? Ahhh the hypocracy.
"This is a victory for the American people and the rule of law," San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement. "This executive order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry.
"We live in a democracy. No one is above the law, including the president."
Theres a reason we arent a democracy. Its to keep idiots from having majority rule.
We DO NOT live in a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers distinctly opposed establishing a pure democracy.
-----------------------------
Democracy Versus Republic {Stop calling it a Democracy}
..."Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to
every state within that "republic" a "republican form" of government, they
well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all
in their power to make the feature of government signified by those terms
as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of
the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were
deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times,
and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy."...
----------------------
We live in a democratic REPUBLIC.
Big difference.
United States: Republic or Democracy?
The funds in question were already approved by Congress. Ergo, Trump is trying to have the executive branch legislate. No sir. Unconstitutional per the court's ruling.
However, that's not true.
In fact, this judge is overstepping the bounds of the Judiciary in attempting to prevent the Chief Executive from carrying out (executing) existing law dealing with lawbreakers who ignore the laws of immigration AS THEY ARE WRITTEN and is a constitutionally delineated jurisdiction of the Executive Office to enforce.
The judge wrote an opinion that is FOS.
Well, the Court disagrees as a legal matter. 300+ sanctuary cities disagree as a practical matter. So, there it is. Deal with it.
Thats your advice to the victims of their crimes, eh? Raped, assaulted, killed by people who have no business being in the country. The victims and their families need to just deal with it huh? Nothing could have been done.
Picking and choosing which laws to follow smh. The federal govt should have rolled in there and shut that down. I'm pro legalization, but letting the states flaunt federal law seems to me bad precedent.
"The White House had threatened to cut federal law enforcement grants from cities that fought Trumps efforts to combat undocumented immigration and said it would publicly shame localities that failed to comply with attempts to increase deportations."
You were saying? *cough*
The funds in question were already approved by Congress. Ergo, Trump is trying to have the executive branch legislate. No sir. Unconstitutional per the court's ruling.